The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (no more than 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfairness) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (10 months of imprisonment, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, etc., Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, etc., Defendant D: 3 million won of fine, etc.) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the favorable circumstances such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and process of the crime, criminal history, result of the crime, etc., Defendant B’s punishment on the same kind of crime prior to the crime of this case, committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, and the profits acquired from the crime of this case are not significant, Defendant B’s confession at the trial, and the circumstances that need to consider the balance of the punishment compared to the role of other accomplices, the lower court’s punishment on Defendant B is too unreasonable, considering all the factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime of this case.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is reasonable, and the prosecutor’s above assertion against Defendant B is without merit.

B. Unless there exist circumstances, such as where the first instance court’s determination of Defendant A, C, and D exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance court’s determination of sentencing in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the above Defendants were led to confessions by the Defendant, Defendant A, C, and D, under the unfavorable circumstances, such as that the nature of the instant crime committed by the Defendant, Defendant A, C, and D is not negligible.